[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Jurassic forest in DC
In a message dated 97-02-05 03:01:58 EST, Josh Smith writes,
> The Passaic Formation is Carnian and Norian (Late Triassic).
Paul Olsen of Lamont places the Passaic Fm. as Earliest Jurassic, 210-205
Ma. I don't have the ref though but will try to locate it.
> OK. Enough of this. There is currently no published data that
> is valid that supports the assignment of the _Dilophosaurus_ sp. to the
> large "theropod" tracks of the Newark Supergroup called _Eubrontes_.
> Given the sample size of _Dilophosaurus_ there is NO data whatsoever
> supporting the assignment of _Dilophosaurus_ to _Grallator_. In fact,
> and this stuff is still within the bowels of the great publishing
> machines, the most current data that I know of doesn't support the
> assignment of any specific trackmaker to these ichnotaxa,
>but only states > that they are theropod.
As did I.
After careful review of my post which prompted Dr. Smith's irate reply, I
found no mention of or allusion to Dilophosaurus sp. or Eubrontes to the
'grallator' type theropod tracks. In fact, I purposely enclosed the the
ichnogenus name in quotes to denote a degree of uncertainty, Further, I was
careful to also state that "we __may__ have even recovered a prosauropd
track..." , also a carefully worded statement so as to not elicit responces
such as this!
Since I was relating an _anecdote_I did not think I needed my asbestos
> Sorry. It just irritates me when people (or institutions) lable
> a footprint as having been made by a certain animal when they have no way
> to support it.
I wholeheartedly agree! And after re-reading the initiial post that started
this thread, my (anecdotal) reply and the responce to it, I fail to see
where one would think this has happened. ;-)
Thomas R. Lipka